↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

In vitro and in vivo efficacy of afatinib as a single agent or in combination with gemcitabine for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
In vitro and in vivo efficacy of afatinib as a single agent or in combination with gemcitabine for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s94432
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cong Xue, Ying Tian, Jing Zhang, Yuanyuan Zhao, Jianhua Zhan, Wenfeng Fang, Li Zhang

Abstract

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is usually overexpressed in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We tested the antitumor effects of irreversible ErbB family inhibitor afatinib on human NPC using in vitro and in vivo models. The effect of afatinib on NPC cells was evaluated using the Cell Counting Kit 8 (CCK8) assay, flow cytometry, and Western blot analyses. The effect of afatinib, as either a single agent or in combination with gemcitabine (GEM), on tumor growth was determined using NPC tumor xenografts in mice. Afatinib inhibited cell growth in all three NPC cell lines tested in a dose-dependent manner. Afatinib promoted cell cycle arrest at the S and G2/M phases, and it significantly inhibited epidermal growth factor (EGF)-induced activation of EGFR and its downstream signaling factors. Co-treatment with afatinib and GEM more effectively inhibited tumor growth than either drug alone but was associated with increased toxicity. Afatinib induced cell cycle arrest and inhibited the proliferation of NPC cell lines. Afatinib in combination with GEM demonstrated significant antitumor effect in an NPC xenograft model. The administration of afatinib with GEM in NPC needs to be modified in order to be effective and tolerable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 42%
Other 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 25%
Chemistry 2 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,437
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,193
of 312,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#50
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.